State v. Ross
118 N.E.3d 371
Ohio Ct. App.2018Background
- On June 8, 2015 Lamont Lake was stabbed at his home; Willie D. Ross was indicted for aggravated burglary, felonious assault, and attempted murder (with repeat-violent-offender specifications). A jury convicted Ross of aggravated burglary and felonious assault and acquitted him of attempted murder. Ross was sentenced to concurrent terms (7 years and 2 years).
- The State gave pretrial notice it would use Ross’s 2000 Texas aggravated robbery conviction for impeachment under Evid.R. 609 and identified potential use of witness-conviction evidence under Evid.R. 609(B).
- At trial Ross testified and denied posting certain Facebook comments attributed to him; the State sought to admit screenshots of Facebook posts and called Halley (Lyons) as a rebuttal witness who authenticated the posts and said she took pictures of the conversation.
- The trial court allowed the State to impeach Ross with his over-ten-years-old robbery conviction, admitted the Facebook screenshots as authenticated, permitted Lyons’s rebuttal testimony, and later supplemented jury instructions to clarify when an invited guest’s privilege to remain in a home is terminated.
- On appeal Ross raised four assignments of error: (1) improper admission of his prior conviction under Evid.R. 609, (2) admission of unauthenticated Facebook posts, (3) erroneous allowance of Lyons’s rebuttal testimony (and related continuance and witness-tampering instruction issues), and (4) improper supplemental jury instruction given after deliberations began.
- The appellate court affirmed: it held the trial court abused discretion admitting the prior conviction under Evid.R. 609(B) but found that error harmless; it rejected Ross’s challenges to authentication, rebuttal testimony, continuance, witness-tampering instruction, and the supplemental jury instruction.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Ross's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of >10-year-old prior conviction under Evid.R. 609(B) | Prior robbery conviction is probative of credibility and relevant because credibility is central; prior notice was given | Admission required an explicit on-record finding that probative value (with specific facts) substantially outweighed prejudice; trial court failed to perform the required balancing | Court: Trial court abused discretion under Evid.R. 609(B) in admitting the conviction, but the error was harmless; assignment overruled |
| Authentication of Facebook screenshots (Evid.R. 901) | Lyons and other testimony sufficed to authenticate screenshots as pictures she took of posts; threshold for authentication is low | Exhibits lacked traditional metadata (dates/timestamps), so were not properly authenticated | Court: Authentication satisfied via witness testimony and circumstances; admission proper |
| Rebuttal witness (Lyons): admission, continuance, witness-tampering instruction | Lyons’s testimony rebutted Ross’s claim he didn’t post; State located her after Ross testified and promptly notified defense; brief continuance given; voir dire and cross-examination occurred | Admission was prejudicial; counsel needed a longer continuance to investigate; jury should have been instructed on witness tampering | Court: Allowing Lyons as rebuttal was within discretion; brief continuance sufficient given circumstances; no jury instruction on tampering required; assignments overruled |
| Supplemental jury instruction during deliberations (when an invited guest’s privilege terminates) | The instruction (that privilege may be terminated if invited guest commits a violent act) correctly stated law and supplemented prior instructions | Objected to additional instruction after deliberations began | Court: Supplemental instruction was a correct statement of law and proper clarification; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Blakemore v. Blakemore, 5 Ohio St.3d 217 (Ohio 1983) (standard for abuse of discretion review)
- State v. Goney, 87 Ohio App.3d 497 (Ohio Ct. App. 1993) (factors to consider under Evid.R. 609 for admitting prior convictions)
- State v. Brown, 100 Ohio St.3d 51 (Ohio 2003) (trial court has broad discretion under Evid.R. 609)
- State v. Steffen, 31 Ohio St.3d 111 (Ohio 1987) (permission to enter a home is terminated by committing a violent act)
- State v. McNeill, 83 Ohio St.3d 438 (Ohio 1998) (rebuttal testimony admissibility and trial-court discretion)